LordFangor's Journal

LordFangor's Journal


Honor: 253    [ Give / Take ]


22 entries this month

Jack Smith: Mango Immunity Would Be The End of Democracy

19:39 Dec 31 2023
Times Read: 85

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team filed a new brief on Saturday with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Donald Trump’s claims that he’s immune from prosecution over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on the basis he was president at the time and that he was acquitted by the Senate following being impeached over his actions.

“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” special counsel Smith and his team wrote in its 82-page filing (via Politico). “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”

Last weekend, Trump claimed he was merely doing his “duty” as commander-in-chief by alleging the election was “rigged” or “stolen.” His lawyers offered their own late-night filing last Saturday to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where they asked the judges to overturn a lower court’s ruling that Trump can be prosecuted for the actions he took while in office. Being president, District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in the ruling earlier this month, “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

In the new brief, Smith argues that there is no blanket immunity from criminal prosecution afforded to the presidency, especially for a former president charged with threats to the transfer of power. “Dismissal [is] unwarranted because the indictment contains substantial allegations of a plot to overturn the election results that fall well outside the outer perimeter of official Presidential responsibilities,” Smith wrote.

With Trump facing four separate criminal indictments — two federal cases brought by Smith and two state cases— and as the first former president in history to be charged with either state or federal crimes, the arguments both sides present are unprecedented.

The brief addressed that Trump and his legal team’s argument for post-presidential immunity may apply regarding civil liability for official conduct — citing the Supreme Court’s decision in 1982 that the president has immunity for civil damages, which followed President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 and debate over whether he should be prosecuted over Watergate — but the ruling does not exempt a president from criminal liability.

“Any burdens of post-Presidency criminal liability have minimal impact on the functions of an incumbent and are outweighed by the paramount public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution,” per the brief. “Constitutional text, historical practice, and other immunity doctrines confirm that conclusion.”

The brief later states: “No historical materials support [Trump’s] broad immunity claim, and the post-Presidency pardon that President Nixon accepted reflects the consensus view that a former President is subject to prosecution after leaving office.” It also shot down Trump’s claims that his acquittal by the Senate renders the criminal case a violation of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy, with the brief citing that the district court has already denied both motions of presidential-immunity and double-jeopardy motions.

“Because the only remedies available in the impeachment proceedings were removal and disqualification, the defendant was never previously placed in jeopardy. But even if he were, the indictment charges different offenses than were at issue in his impeachment,” the brief adds.

A three-judge panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Jan. 9 over the matter.

Earlier in the month, the Supreme Court denied Smith’s petition to fast-track a ruling on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any crimes he committed while in office. The court did not specify its reasons for the decision.





Presidential Candidate Haley Confused About The Civil War

02:13 Dec 29 2023
Times Read: 102

Short and sweet she was asked the same question before when she ran for Governor AND left out slavery as the reason for the Civil War. Now she is running for the GOPQ Presidential Nomination and left out slavery AGAIN.. She can make all the excuses she wants.... The problem is GOPQ historical revision.... None of them are qualified to lead an expedition to the shit house.




Maine Boots Mango Off The Ballot

01:56 Dec 29 2023
Times Read: 103

Breaking news from Maine! The Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, has officially ruled that Trump is ineligible to be on the 2024 primary ballot, mirroring what Colorado did just a week ago.

Read it here https://crooksandliars.com/2023/12/maine-removes-trump-2024-primary-ballot





Behind The Canadian Travel Advisory To It's Citizens

11:33 Dec 25 2023
Times Read: 126

It was a polite Canadian warning from a close friend and neighbor.

But Canada’s updated travel advisory to its citizens, counseling them to be careful about traveling to the United States, set off an international furor last summer.

The message renewed attention over the rightward shift in state-level policies governing abortion and the rights of LGBTQ+ people — a trend that has stirred deep concern in Canada, especially after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

And the previously unreported back story behind the travel communique is even more revealing, exposing the delicate dance of a left-of-center Canadian government as it sought to navigate America’s incendiary cultural politics without imperiling the tightest of alliances.

The travel advisory that went viral was 71 days in the making. Correspondence shared with POLITICO through a freedom-of-information request reveals the change started with a concern raised by federal health department officials about Canadian travelers’ access to emergency care in an era of backsliding U.S. abortion rights.

The internal emails reveal Canada was aware it was an “outlier” among “most-like-minded” countries because its official U.S. travel advice was lacking “some languages on 2SLGBTQI+ issues.”

The U.K. issued an advisory against travel to southern U.S. states in April 2016 over anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Australia updated its advisory with tougher language last year.

Canada, officials believed, had some catching up to do.

The update came shortly after Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly alluded to a “game plan” to manage “a rather difficult situation” if the result of next year’s election puts Donald Trump back in the White House and America on a hard-right, authoritarian path. It’s urgent homework U.S. democratic allies are figuring out.

Friction between the Canadian government and hardline Republicans in the United States is not a new dynamic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has used the far right as a foil for years, including recently ratcheting up his rhetoric to brand his domestic political rivals as “MAGA conservatives,” linking them to Donald Trump’s political movement.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, Trudeau declared the decision “horrific” and doubled down on abortion rights. He has also spoken out against the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ laws in America making their own imprint in some Canadian provinces.

The official travel advisory, issued on Aug. 29, was more restrained.

“Some states have enacted laws and policies that may affect 2SLGBTQI+ persons. Check relevant state and local laws,” read the August posting from Global Affairs Canada (GAC), employing a term for the broad LGBTQ+ community that is used in Canada.

The language was simple. The bureaucratic process of formulating it was not.

The paper trail reveals worries that discriminatory health care policies could be barriers for international travelers from receiving emergency attention.

In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal on Roe v. Wade, 14 states have declared abortion illegal. A wave of bans have made it harder for transgender youth to receive gender-affirming care in Republican states including Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee.

On June 19, a manager working in Health Canada’s strategic policy branch on sexual and reproductive health emailed two senior Global Affairs Canada department officials, citing concerns from “a variety of sources” about scenarios Canadians could encounter in regions of the U.S. that have enshrined anti-trans hate into state-level laws.

“Pregnant Canadians travelling in certain U.S. states might not receive the kinds of care they’d expect if they run into complications in their pregnancy,” read the email. “And, we’re hearing concerns about trans Canadians (and in some cases caregivers travelling with trans youth) who might need to travel to certain states.”

The health department’s concern was met with a perfunctory reply a week later.

Cindy Moriarty, Health Canada director general of health programs and strategic initiatives, pressed the foreign affairs department for details about its process for posting travel advisories.

“I’m sure you are as busy as we are — we have limited capacity,” Moriarty wrote June 30. “Depending on what is required we might defer this request until later, but if it’s something ‘do-able’ we’d be very interested in pursuing it with you.”

The deputy director of GAC’s travel information program initially thought Health Canada’s concern was about abortion.

“We haven’t been commenting on access to abortion in any country, on the basis that if a Canadian was refused an abortion abroad, they have the ability to come back to Canada to obtain the medical procedure,” the deputy director explained in a June 30 email.

“On the case of the U.S., we wouldn’t single them out as access is the worst in a large proportion of foreign countries, so singling [them] out wouldn’t be fair or credible.”

Moriarty clarified the issue was not exclusively about access to abortion.

“Our concern is for women with wanted pregnancies who want to carry to term, but may — God forbid — run into trouble,” Moriarty wrote. “A car accident etc. They will be refused care. Some women in some states are dying as a result.”

She said “2SLGBTQ, especially transgender people” are also at risk.

The GAC deputy director ruled the issue outside the program’s mandate. “I wish I could point you in another direction, but can’t think of one. I’m sorry.”

Internally, discussions were underway in a separate chain within the foreign affairs department to draft a travel advisory.

Internal emails reveal that on June 26 GAC officials in Ottawa were workshopping the wording of an updated U.S. travel advisory with Canada’s embassy in Washington.

Emails bounced back and forth for the next two weeks. Bureaucrats copied and pasted into the email chain wording used by the U.K. and Australia.

A senior GAC official advised a desk officer to borrow from Australia’s advisory, which states: “There’s no federal law that explicitly protects LGBTQIA+ people from discrimination.”

Australia’s tone “seems most appropriate,” Julie Sunday, Canada’s top official for consular services, wrote in a July 13 email. Eight business days later, a diplomat in Washington flagged the language as potentially “misleading” because it overlooked case law related to hate crimes. Inspiration from Australia was nixed.

The advisory text was finalized on Aug. 18, though a few hurdles remained.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s office signed off, but asked if bureaucrats had given the U.S. a heads-up given the anticipated media buzz. The answer was no. Joly’s office requested a hold until their American counterparts could be briefed.

A Canadian diplomat in Washington confirmed a week later that he’d reached a State Department official on Aug. 22.

“The conversation was very matter-of-fact,” read an Aug. 23 email from a GAC desk officer. The brief message is redacted, notably right after the words, “No immediate issues were raised on the call, though mission noted that …”

Joly’s office gave the green light on Aug. 28, a day before the travel warning went live and made news around the world.





Fuentes Calls For Death Of Non-Christians

01:02 Dec 25 2023
Times Read: 134

Many call for "peace on Earth" in the Christmas season.

Nationally known La Grange Park racist Nicholas Fuentes is doing the opposite: He is pushing for the death penalty for non-Christians.

Nicholas Fuentes, who at last check still votes in La Grange Park, has grabbed headlines in the past. In November 2022, Fuentes and Kanye West, who stirred controversy over repeated antisemitic comments, dined with former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

In his recent podcast, Fuentes said he was focused on "occult" elements at the highest level of societies, particularly Jewish people.

"So many of the people perpetrating the lies, the destruction of the country, they are evildoers. They are people who worship the false gods. They are people who practice magic and rituals or whatever," Fuentes said. "More than anything, those people need to be, when we take power, they need to be given the death penalty."

He said he was more concerned about such people than he was about nonwhites and mass migration.

"These are people communicating with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff. These people that are suppressing the name of Christ and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power," said Fuentes, who was Lyons Township High School's student body president before he graduated in 2016.

"This is God's country. This is Jesus' country," Fuentes continued. "This is not the domain of atheists and devil worshippers, perfidious Jews. This is Christ's country."

In the fall, Fuentes fantasized about having African Americans killed, saying it would be "awesome."

For years, Fuentes aired his podcast from his parents' home in La Grange Park. He is believed to have moved his studio to Berwyn.

Last year, his mother, Lauren Fuentes, appeared to be a big fan of her son's racist ideology during an appearance on his podcast.

In another episode of his podcast, Fuentes said his father, Bill Fuentes, would not take his family to certain restaurants because he believed they were associated with African Americans. It was a "running joke" in the family, Nicholas Fuentes said.

Only his sister, Melissa Fuentes, appears to have no sympathy for Fuentes' views. She has publicly supported diversity. She also appears to back the LGBTQ community, which her brother reviles.


There you go..... When Mango takes power again, power that he will never give up again, Fuentes is coming after you.

I think I've said this before but someone should really run this little twerp over in the parking lot.




Mango REMOVED From 2024 Ballot By Colorado Supreme Court

01:41 Dec 20 2023
Times Read: 155

Setting up an appeal before the highest court in the land, the Colorado Supreme Court issues a landmark ruling to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from state ballots based on its reading of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for Trump seek to block Northwestern University marketing professor Ashlee Humphreys from testifying in the second defamation lawsuit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll. Days after winning a $148 million civil judgment against former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss file another lawsuit against him to keep him from repeating his false claims against them. Here is the latest legal news involving the man who hopes to win reelection to the White House in 2024.


Well, we will see what Mangp's buddies on the U.S. Supreme Court do




11th Circuit Issues Fast Decision and Refuses To Allow Meadows To Remove His Case To Federal Court

10:00 Dec 19 2023
Times Read: 168

An appeals court panel denied former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’s bid to move his Georgia 2020 election racketeering criminal charges to federal court on Monday, rejecting a strategy that could’ve led to the charges being tossed and provided him with other advantages.

In a swift ruling issued just three days after oral arguments, the three-judge panel ruled that former federal officials — as opposed to current ones — are ineligible to move their charges.

Meadows had hoped to move courts to assert immunity from the indictment, a tactic that could’ve imperiled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) prosecution of other co-defendants, too, including former President Trump.

Willis charged Trump, Meadows and more than a dozen others over accusations they unlawfully attempted to overturn President Biden’s victory in Georgia. It is one of four indictments Trump faces.

Arguing he was acting in his capacity as chief of staff, Meadows contended that federal law enabled him to move his case out of state court.

But even if the law governing such transfers, a process known as removal, did extend to former officials, Meadows cannot leverage the statute because he did not establish he was acting in his official role, the judges ruled.

By finding that former federal officials are ineligible to move courts, Monday’s ruling also is likely to doom similar efforts being mounted by four other co-defendants in Trump’s case: the three so-called “fake electors” charged and Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. Their attempts are moving on a slower timetable.

Although all three judges agreed, the two Democratic appointees on the panel wrote a separate opinion urging Congress to amend the removal statute so it applies to former officials.

Judge Robin Rosenbaum, joined by Judge Nancy Abudu, warned of a hypothetical in which more than a dozen states could try to prosecute top administration officials over policy disagreements. The officials would have no guarantee that a federal court would hear their defenses after leaving office, Rosenbaum noted.

“This nightmare scenario keeps me up at night,” she wrote.

“In my view, not extending the federal-officer removal statute to former officers for prosecutions based on the official actions during the tenure is bad policy, and it represents a potential threat to our republic’s stability,” she continued. “Of course, my role as a judge does not allow me to rewrite laws to fit my view of what’s wise. Rather, I must faithfully interpret the laws as they are written. So today I join the Majority Opinion because it does that.”


You see Georgia is going to put his traitorous fat ass in Georgia State Prison




Clarence Is Bought And Paid For !- A Kept Man

19:48 Dec 18 2023
Times Read: 179

In early January 2000, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.

At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign.

Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon” — maybe in the next year.

At the time, Thomas’ salary was $173,600, equivalent to over $300,000 today. But he was one of the least wealthy members of the court, and on multiple occasions in that period, he pushed for ways to make more money. In other private conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about removing a ban on justices giving paid speeches.
Thomas’ efforts were described in records from the time obtained by ProPublica, including a confidential memo to Chief Justice William Rehnquist from a top judiciary official seeking guidance on what he termed a “delicate matter.”

The documents, as well as interviews, offer insight into how Thomas was talking about his finances in a crucial period in his tenure, just as he was developing his relationships with a set of wealthy benefactors.

Congress never lifted the ban on speaking fees or gave the justices a major raise. But in the years that followed, as ProPublica has reported, Thomas accepted a stream of gifts from friends and acquaintances that appears to be unparalleled in the modern history of the Supreme Court. Some defrayed living expenses large and small — private school tuition, vehicle batteries, tires. Other gifts from a coterie of ultrarich men supplemented his lifestyle, such as free international vacations on the private jet and superyacht of Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow.

Precisely what led so many people to offer Thomas money and other gifts remains an open question. There’s no evidence the justice ever raised the specter of resigning with Crow or his other wealthy benefactors.

George Priest, a Yale Law School professor who has vacationed with Thomas and Crow, told ProPublica he believes Crow’s generosity was not intended to influence Thomas’ views but rather to make his life more comfortable. “He views Thomas as a Supreme Court justice as having a limited salary,” Priest said. “So he provides benefits for him.”

Thomas and Crow didn’t respond to questions for this story. Crow, a major Republican donor, has not had cases at the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it and has previously said Thomas is a dear friend. David Sokol, a conservative financier who has taken Thomas on vacation on a private jet, said in a statement that he and Thomas had never discussed the justice’s finances or when he might retire.

There’s an often-criticized dynamic surrounding most important jobs in the federal government: The posts pay far less than comparable jobs in the private sector, but officials can cash in once they leave. Ex-regulators sell advice to the regulated. Generals retire to join military contractors. Former senators get jobs lobbying Congress.

But there is no revolving-door payday waiting on the other side of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Justices generally stay on the bench past their 80th birthday, if not until death. In 2000, justices were paid more than cabinet secretaries or members of Congress, and far more than the average American. Still, judges’ salaries were not keeping pace with inflation, a source of ire throughout the federal judiciary. Young associates at top law firms made more than Supreme Court justices, while partners at the firms could earn millions a year.

Some of Thomas’ colleagues were extremely wealthy — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was married to a high-paid tax lawyer and Justice Stephen Breyer to the daughter of a wealthy British lord. Thomas did not come from money. When he was appointed to the court in 1991, he was 43 years old and had spent almost all his adult life working for the government. At the time, he still had student loans from law school, Thomas has said.

The full details of Thomas’ finances over the years remain unclear. He made at least two big purchases around the early ’90s: a Corvette and a house in the Virginia suburbs on 5 acres of land. When Thomas and his wife, Ginni, bought the home for $522,000 a year after he joined the court, they borrowed all but $8,000, less than 2% of the purchase price, property records show.

Public records suggest a degree of financial strain. Throughout the first decade of his tenure, the couple regularly borrowed more money, including a $100,000 credit line on their house and a consumer loan of up to $50,000. Around January 1998, Thomas’ life changed when he took in his 6-year-old grandnephew, becoming his legal guardian and raising him as a son. The Thomases sent the child to a series of private schools.

In early January 2000, Thomas took the trip to the Georgia beach resort. Thomas was there to deliver a keynote speech at Awakening, a “conservative thought weekend” featuring golf, shooting lessons and aromatherapy along with panel discussions with businessmen and elected officials. (A founder and organizer of the annual event, Ernest Taylor, told ProPublica that Thomas’ trip was paid for by the organization. Thomas reported 11 free trips that year on his annual financial disclosure, mostly to colleges and universities, but did not disclose attending the conservative conference, an apparent violation of federal disclosure law.)

On a commercial flight back from Awakening, Thomas brought up the prospect of justices resigning to Stearns, the Republican lawmaker. Worried, Stearns wrote a letter to Thomas after the flight promising “to look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of The Supreme Court.”

“As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted,” Stearns wrote. “We must have the proper incentives here, too.”

Stearns’ office soon sought help from a lobbying firm working on the issue, and he delivered a speech on the House floor about judges’ salaries getting eroded by inflation. Thomas’ warning about resignations was relayed at a meeting of the heads of several judges’ associations. L. Ralph Mecham, then the judiciary’s top administrative official, fired off the memo describing Thomas’ complaints to Rehnquist, his boss.

I understand that Justice Thomas clearly told him that in his view departures would occur within the next year or so,” Mecham wrote of Thomas’ conversation with Stearns. Mecham worried that “from a tactical point of view,” congressional Democrats might oppose a raise if they sensed “the apparent purpose is to keep Justices [Antonin] Scalia and Thomas on the Court.” (Scalia had nine children and was also one of the less wealthy justices. Scalia, Mecham and Rehnquist have since died.)

It’s not clear if Rehnquist ever responded. Several months later, Rehnquist focused his annual year-end report on what he called “the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary: the need to increase judicial salaries.”

Several people close to Thomas told ProPublica they believed that it was implausible the justice would ever retire early, and that he may have exaggerated his concerns to bolster the case for a raise. But around 2000, chatter that Thomas was dissatisfied about money circulated through conservative legal circles and on Capitol Hill, according to interviews with prominent attorneys, former members of Congress and Thomas’ friends. “It was clear he was unhappy with his financial situation and his salary,” one friend said.

Former Sen. Trent Lott, then the Republican Senate majority leader, recalled in a recent interview that there were serious concerns at the time that Thomas or other justices would leave.

The public received hardly a hint that such conversations about Thomas were unfolding in Washington. Thomas did once allude to government salaries, in a 2001 speech praising the value of public service. “The job is not worth doing for what they pay. It’s not worth doing for the grief,” he said. “But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Around that time, Thomas was also pushing to allow justices to make paid speeches — a source of income that had been banned in the 1980s. On several occasions, Thomas discussed lifting the ban with appellate Judge David Hansen, who chaired the judiciary’s committee responsible for lobbying Congress on issues like pay, according to Mecham’s memo.

At Sen. Mitch McConnell’s request, a provision removing the ban for judges was quietly inserted into a spending bill in mid-2000. Why McConnell made the proposal became a subject of scrutiny in the legal press. After the Legal Times reported the measure had been dubbed the “Keep Scalia on the Court” bill, Scalia responded that the “honorarium ban makes no difference to me” and denied that he would ever leave the court for financial reasons. (The ban was never lifted. McConnell did not respond to a request for comment.)

During his second decade on the court, Thomas’ financial situation appears to have markedly improved. In 2003, he received the first payments of a $1.5 million advance for his memoir, a record-breaking sum for justices at the time. Ginni Thomas, who had been a congressional staffer, was by then working at the Heritage Foundation and was paid a salary in the low six figures.

Thomas also received dozens of expensive gifts throughout the 2000s, sometimes coming from people he’d met only shortly before. Thomas met Earl Dixon, the owner of a Florida pest control company, while getting his RV serviced outside Tampa in 2001, according to the Thomas biography “Supreme Discomfort.” The next year, Dixon gave Thomas $5,000 to put toward his grandnephew’s tuition. Thomas reported the payment in his annual disclosure filing.

Larger gifts went undisclosed. Crow paid for two years of private high school, which tuition rates indicate would’ve cost roughly $100,000. In 2008, another wealthy friend forgave “a substantial amount, or even all” of the principal on the loan Thomas had used to buy the quarter-million dollar RV, according to a recent Senate inquiry prompted by The New York Times’ reporting. Much of the Thomases’ leisure time was also paid for by a small set of billionaire businessmen, who brought the justice and his family on free vacations around the world. (Thomas has said he did not need to disclose the gifts of travel and his lawyer has disputed the Senate findings about the RV.)


read the rest of it

ok... bought and paid for..... And this fucker should recuse himself from hearing the Immunity Issue of Mango... let's not forget Clarence's wife was up to her neck in the insurrection and fake elector's scheme.




Mango REPEATS Hitler Rhetoric in New Hampshire

22:09 Dec 17 2023
Times Read: 192

During his speech at a campaign event held at the Whittemore Center Arena in Durham, New Hampshire on Saturday, Donald Trump did a repeat performance of only slightly paraphrased Hitler rhetoric which garnered backlash when he first debuted the material back in October.

Speaking to a crowd of MAGA supporters, Trump said, "We got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country," which MTN points out is a near direct quote to a line in Hitler's Mein Kampf: "All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning."

"They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world," Trump said this weekend. "Not just in South America. Not just the three or four countries we think about. But all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia. All over the world. They're pouring into our country. Nobody's even looking at them, they just come in."

Hearing this type of thing come up more and more at Trump's events, Jonathan Stanley, a Yale professor and author of a book on fascism points out the dangers of such language in a quote used by Reuters, saying, "He is now employing this vocabulary in repetition in rallies. Repeating dangerous speech increases its normalization and the practices it recommends. This is very concerning talk for the safety of immigrants in the U.S."


So there you go , Mango echoed Hitler in October and now he has repeated it. But everything is OK, right? How about this the majority of elected GOP officials, Congresspersons, Seantors, are WILLING TO ACCEPT A DICTATORSHIP. Why? To ram through their social changes, to stop the entry into this country of the darker skinned, to imprison even without charges, those they deem an enemy, to revamp the education system even though the majority of GOPQ voters in this country haven't a read a book besides the King James (my opinion), to eliminate alternative lifestyles in this country, to send the U.S. Military into American Cities. If they are not willing to accept the above then why are they so silent on Mango? Think about it, it's not all because they are afraid of their own voters.




Rudy To Pay Millions

02:19 Dec 16 2023
Times Read: 206

A Washington, DC, jury has ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay nearly $150 million to two Georgia election workers for the harm caused by defamatory statements he made about them following the 2020 election.

Ruby Freeman was awarded $16,171,000 for defamation and $20 million for emotional distress. Shaye Moss, Freeman’s daughter, was awarded $16,998,000 for defamation and $20 million for emotional distress. The jury also awarded $75 million in punitive damages to both plaintiffs.

Giuliani watched intently as the verdict was read, using a stylus on a touch-screen device, apparently taking down notes on the figures he’d been ordered to pay. After leaving the courtroom, the former New York mayor and onetime attorney to former President Donald Trump vowed to appeal.

After the proceedings ended, Freeman and Moss hugged each other tightly and then every member of their legal team. There was a feeling of jubilation among the plaintiffs in the courtroom after Giuliani left, and Freeman looked especially relieved after the jury forewoman read the numbers, spinning around slightly in her chair and closing her eyes briefly.

“Today is a good day. A jury stood witness to what Rudy Giuliani did to me and my daughter and held him accountable, and for that I’m thankful. Today is not the end of the road. We still have work to do,” Freeman said outside the courthouse Friday.

Moss told reporters, “I spent 10 years as an election worker in Fulton County, Georgia. The lies Rudy Giuliani told about me and my mommy after the 2020 presidential election have changed our lives and the past few years has been devastating.”

“The flame that Giuliani lit with those lies and passed to so many others to keep that flame blazing changed every aspect of our lives, our homes, our family, our work, our sense of safety, our mental health, and we’re still working to rebuild,” Moss said. “As we move forward and continue to seek justice, our greatest wish is that no one, no election worker or voter or school board member or anyone else ever experiences anything like what we went through. You all matter and you are all important. We hope no one ever has to fight so hard just to get your name back.”

Giuliani was found liable this summer for defamation against Freeman and Moss after failing to respond to parts of their lawsuit. The mother and daughter claimed in their case that they have suffered emotional and reputational harm as well as having their safety put in danger after Giuliani singled them out when he made false claims of ballot tampering in Georgia.

During the trial, an attorney for Freeman and Moss showed videos and played audio clips in which Giuliani repeated false claims that the two election workers stuffed ballots and were caught on video allegedly passing a USB drive as part of a vote-stealing scheme.


lol..... appeal Rudy appeal.... As I recall you already owe your former attorneys a million... keep running it up... You don't have squat anyway.




THE GOPQ/MAGA Trash Wants To Give You The Texas Model

10:24 Dec 13 2023
Times Read: 227

Justices on Texas’ Supreme Court decided this week that a Dallas woman’s pregnancy was not risky enough, that she wasn’t in quite enough danger, to justify an abortion her doctors deemed necessary.

Swirl that around in your head for a moment. Justices, the legal experts, overruled doctors, the medial experts, in making a decision that could have profoundly impacted Kate Cox’s health and future fertility. She had already been to the emergency room four times with complications relating to her nonviable pregnancy. She was at risk of a potentially fatal uterine rupture or other complications.

But the Supreme Court said no, your life is not in enough danger to be excused from Texas’ strict ban on abortion.

Texas Supreme Court gives baffling reason for denying abortion
The bizarre reasoning is reflected in this excerpt from their ruling delivered Monday: “By requiring the doctor to exercise 'reasonable medical judgment,’ the Legislature determined that the medical judgment involved must meet an objective standard. Dr. (Damla) Karsan asserted that she has a 'good faith belief’ that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise ‘reasonable medical judgment’ if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a ‘reasonable medical’ judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her ‘good faith belief’ about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard.”

So because the words “reasonable medical judgment” were not used in the lower-court case, the Supreme Court knocked the whole thing down. To be clear, in the lower-court judge’s ruling in favor of Cox, the judge wrote that Cox’s doctor “believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment,” that an abortion is “medically recommended” and that Cox’s situation meets the medical exceptions to Texas’ abortion bans.

Apparently “best medical judgment” and “reasonable medical judgment” aren’t the same thing because the words “good faith” were in there.

If a national abortion ban comes, America will look like Texas
Setting aside the twisted notion that a woman needs to petition for permission to make a decision about her own reproductive health, the events that followed Cox’s original complaint serve as a warning for woman and their loved ones across the country about what could come from a national abortion ban, something many Republicans favor.

First, a judge sided with Cox and ruled she had met the standards for the state’s abortion exception. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately reached out to the hospitals where Cox’s doctors have privileges and leveled a threat that no one involved in an abortion procedure would be safe from fines or prosecution.

He then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which on Friday put a hold on the lower court’s ruling. On Monday, the high court sided with Paxton, effectively parsing language Cox’s doctor used that the justices didn’t deem serious enough.

With Texas Supreme Court abortion ruling, GOP finds its death panels
I suppose congratulations are in order. It appears that in post-Roe America, Republicans have finally found the "death panels" they falsely and hysterically warned about more than a decade ago when protesting the creation of Obamacare.

In a 2009 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin wrote that President Barack Obama’s proposals in trying to expand access to health care “would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.”

Trump as a dictator? Republicans assure us it was a joke. What could go wrong?

The secondary headline of her piece warned menacingly: “The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.”

Sarah Palin's rhetoric was nonsense, but look at what's happening now
It was, of course, abject nonsense. But now, after a conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, look at what’s happening with life-or-death health care matters women are facing in red states that reverted to draconian abortion bans.

Before the Texas Supreme Court issued its ruling Monday, Cox had left the state to get the procedure her doctors deemed medically necessary. The mother of two was in her 21st week of pregnancy, and her fetus had been diagnosed with trisomy 18, a rare genetic disorder that almost always results in miscarriage or stillbirth.

A complaint filed on Cox’s behalf by the Center for Reproductive Rights said doctors told her that “her pregnancy may not survive to birth, and, if it does, her baby would be stillborn or survive for only minutes, hours, or days.”

Taylor Swift vs. MAGA? Trump toadies get mad and dumb over Time's new Person of the Year.

Also, according to the complaint, “because Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (‘C-sections’), continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”

Kate Cox was able to go out state for an abortion procedure. Many can't.
If Cox didn’t have the resources and ability to travel to a state that allows abortions, her health – possibly even her life – would have been at risk. There will be women in Texas and other states with similar harsh abortion laws who will not have those resources, and they will be stuck with whatever decision gets handed down.

Their health, their lives, may well be in the hands of a group of judges with no medical training. In 2009, Palin bemoaned the idea of people who aren’t doctors making “decisions affecting life or death health-care matters.”

So let’s use the name that Palin and Co. concocted to fearmonger 14 years ago and apply it to something actually happening. You wanted to talk about death panels, Republicans? You’ve got ‘em.

But this time they’re terrifyingly real.

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on X, formerly Twitter, @RexHuppke and Facebook facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter.


So this is what the GOPQ/MaGA Trash and the rest of the Republicans wish to bring to the entire country. Originally they were yammering about State's Rights... 50 years of it's a State's Rights issue when Roe was the law of the land. Now, it has turned into well maybe it's much to important to be left up to the voters(U.S. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio has framed the issue that way). So what will theu bring you.... pretty much what Texas has now.

You better wake the fuck up!.




Liz Cheney Says Gym Jordan Complicit in Jan 6. Insurrection

13:24 Dec 07 2023
Times Read: 251

Former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, who was vice chair of the bipartisan House January 6 committee, is raising alarm bells about fellow Republican Jim Jordan, one of the candidates to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

During a speech Wednesday at the University of Minnesota, Cheney told the audience point-blank, “Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives.” She added, “Jim Jordan was involved, was part of the conspiracy in which Donald Trump was engaged as he attempted to overturn the election.”

Pointing to Jordan as one of the leaders of Trump’s efforts surrounding January 6, Cheney said someone needed to ask the Ohio congressman, “Why didn’t you report to the Capitol Police what you knew Donald Trump had planned?”

Cheney’s warning is 100% correct. The January 6 committee’s final report documented that “Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the 2020 election. Jordan went way beyond simply amplifying Trump’s election lies “during interviews with friendly media outlets” — as the January 6 report details the congressman did in fact do.

The January 6 report goes on to document various efforts by Jordan to help Trump achieve his goal of remaining in power despite losing the 2020 election, including participating “in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election.”

The report also highlights his leadership role, writing that on “January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session.”

During that call four days before the January 6 attack, the group not only strategized about ways to delay the congressional certification process but also “discussed issuing social media posts encouraging President Trump’s supporters to ‘march to the Capitol’ on the 6th,’” the report said. After that January 2 conference call, Jordan spoke to Trump for 18 minutes in a one-on-one phone conversation, according to the report.

And on the day before January 6 — as described in the report — “Jordan texted Mark Meadows (then Trump’s chief of staff), passing along advice that Vice President (Mike) Pence should ‘call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’ ” In other words, Jordan was suggesting how Pence could prevent the certification of President Joe Biden’s win when Congress met on January 6.

As part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Trump has been indicted on four criminal counts, including conspiracy to “obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding.” (The former president has pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing.)

Jordan spoke to Trump at least twice on January 6, according to the report, but made “inconsistent public statements about how many times they spoke and what they discussed” that day. That is a big reason why the January 6 committee subpoenaed Jordan, noting in its report that he was among those who “had materially relevant communications with Donald Trump or others in the White House.” However, Jordan refused to comply with the subpoena. (The January 6 committee referred Jordan and other GOP lawmakers who defied subpoenas to the House Ethics Committee.)

Jordan dismissed the January 6 committee’s investigation as one of the Democrats’ “partisan witch hunts.” In a 2022 letter to committee Chair Bennie Thompson, he insisted that “I have no relevant information that would assist the Select Committee in advancing any legitimate legislative purpose.” He also asserted he has been “consistent in denouncing political violence and supporting law enforcement personnel.”

Nevertheless, how could anyone such as Jordan, who is tied to efforts to block certification of Biden’s victory and who willfully ignored a congressional subpoena, ever serve as speaker of the House? And very alarmingly, if Jordan were elected speaker, he would be second in line to the president of the United States, behind the vice president.

But Jordan might just win, especially given Trump’s endorsement of him on Friday. Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Jordan “will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”

Of course, Trump believes that Jordan would be great, given how doggedly the lawmaker worked to keep the former president in power after he lost the 2020 election. The January 6 committee report notes that during a December 27, 2020, phone call between Trump and top Department of Justice officials in which Trump made a “stream of allegations” about the election, he praised Jordan as a “fighter.”

During her speech last week, Cheney shared that she did not believe Jordan would ultimately be elected speaker. (He’s vying for the position against Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority leader.) However, she declared that if House Republicans did elect Jordan, “there would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution.”

(CNN reached out to Jordan’s office on Friday about Cheney’s comments and the January 6 committee but did not receive a response.)





FOX Host Says Mango Dictatorship Is Not a Big Deal

10:26 Dec 07 2023
Times Read: 257

BRET BAIER (FOX NEWS ANCHOR): I mean, we’ve seen articles from The Washington Post, The New York Times, as you mentioned, the entire Atlantic magazine dedicated to that. You saw Jon Karl and his book, and his interviews about his book, talking about that particular segment. You’ve seen Liz Cheney out with a new book and doing interviews and referencing that, saying that she believes that he wouldn’t step down from office if elected again, that this would be the last election that you would ever vote in.

I just think people have to put things in perspective. Yes, Donald Trump has on the stump said some things that have raised some eyebrows and raised some concerns. He’s said things like this, or similar to them, prior to 2016. We saw four years of Donald Trump — were there issues that crossed lines? Yes, they raised all kinds of questions. But did people for the most part live their lives and were there checks and balances? Yes, there were. So, I think some perspective on all of this is really important. And some of the things he’s said have, you know, been troubling. But would it be a dictatorship that doesn’t step down from office? It’s hard for me to back that up as of yet.

HUGH HEWITT (HOST): I think it’s utterly hysterical. Because I teach constitutional law, and the Constitution is very strong. And I recall the Roberts court rebuking and overruling the former president, as it has the current president, whenever they go too far vis-a-vis the law. And the rule of law in this country is very, very strong. And this is very, very hysterical.


So there you go... Mango threatens MSNBC, threatens to arrest his political enemies without an explnation for what Federal Statute was violated, apparently threatened to have a staffer executed (in a new report), threatened to have former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, executed, and the fucking list goes on and on.... Yet, FOX, the network of lies and who recently paid 757 million for their lies, continue to coverup for Mango and the MAGA trash.

How about this..Mango calls out the military, issues a Declaration of Public Emergency and says the military is not subject to State laws or Federal laws but answerable only to him, he then arrests any Federal Judge who in any type of proceeding related to the issue that the matter comes in front of, he then openly defies the U.S. Supreme Court. And who then stops him???

Oh, the military has a duty to disobey an unlawful order do they ??




Time's Person of The Year For 2023... Taylor Swift - And The Right Melts Down

10:01 Dec 07 2023
Times Read: 259

Time magazine declared Taylor Swift as 2023’s person of the year on Wednesday, and accompanied the announcement with a rare interview from the artist in which she reflected on the year of her career that truly put her on top of the world. Unsurprisingly, right-wing commentators took the opportunity to interpret Swift’s well-earned success to launch into a conspiracy theory bender.

Swift, who has publicly aligned herself with the pro-choice movement and declared her opposition to former President Donald Trump, has become the ire of a vocal group of conservatives hell-bent on the bizarre notion that the singer is a political weapon aimed at the upcoming presidential election.

End of Wokeness, a far-right account with nearly 2 million followers, credited Swift with having enough rizz to convince a “cult-like following” to “drink poisoned Kool Aid for her.” In the same post, the account prophesied that the singer-songwriter’s next step would be “Politics,” adding, “If you don’t think the regime has plans to weaponize her just in time for 2024, you clearly have not been paying attention.”

Echoing the far-right fear-mongering, former Trump immigration adviser Stephen Miller tweeted, “What’s happening with Taylor Swift is not organic.”

As Trump surrogates stumbled over themselves to chime in, Jack Posobiec, a well-known alt-right troll whom Trump has retweeted, piped, “The Taylor Swift girlboss psyop has been fully activated.” Posobiec also took a lame jab at Travis Kelce. “From her hand-selected vaccine shill boyfriend to her DINK lifestyle to her upcoming 2024 voter operation for Democrats on abortion rights It’s all coming” he bemoaned.

Jeffrey Clark, the former Trump DOJ official criminally-charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election, reposted Posobiec’s comment along with his own vision for the future. “This is what happens when we cede culture to the Left. Brainless youth raising themselves on Taylor Swift’s saccharine bland music and that washing over into the serious world of politics,” he wrote. “If we reach the point where Dwayne The Rock Johnson and Taylor Swift run for office together we will have truly reached full-on Idiocracy where Mike Judge imagined ‘President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho,'” he added.

Right wing commentators previously lost it over Swift’s colossal success, taking time out of their very busy days to give sage insight into her relationship with the Chiefs tight end after their relationship went public in September.


Yes, the right wing does not like her for the above reasons.... lol.... oh yes, I like her, after all What's Not to Like ? :)




Nevada Charges Mango Fake Electors

02:03 Dec 07 2023
Times Read: 265

Nevada’s attorney general on Wednesday announced charges against six so-called fake electors who falsely claimed former President Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election.

“When the efforts to undermine faith in our democracy began after the 2020 election, I made it clear that I would do everything in my power to defend the institutions of our nation and our state,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said in a statement. “We cannot allow attacks on democracy to go unchallenged.”

The six Nevadans face felony charges of offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged document for disseminating a document titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Nevada” to several government entities.





10 Fake Wisconsin Electors Now Recognize Biden As President and Disavow Mango

01:42 Dec 07 2023
Times Read: 267

The 10 fake electors from Wisconsin disavowed their attempt to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in 2020, recognized the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s victory, and pledged not to serve as real electors in 2024 or any election when Trump is on the ballot, or to act as sham electors in any future election, as part of a civil lawsuit settlement announced on Wednesday.

This is the latest measure of accountability for the Trump campaign’s seven-state plot to undermine the Electoral College and block the transfer of power. Federal prosecutors indicted Trump in connection with the scheme; the entire faux delegation from Michigan was hit with state charges; and so have three of the 16 fake electors from Georgia.

As part of the Wisconsin settlement, the 10 fake electors issued a statement acknowledging that the phony certificates they signed in December 2020 were “used as part of an attempt to improperly overturn” the lawful election results.

“We hereby reaffirm that Joseph R. Biden, Jr. won the 2020 presidential election and that we were not the duly elected presidential electors for the State of Wisconsin for the 2020 presidential election,” says a portion of their statement. “We oppose any attempt to undermine the public’s faith in the ultimate results of the 2020 presidential election.”

The agreement also requires the 10 GOP activists to provide “full cooperation” with any “ongoing or future” Justice Department probes related to the 2020 presidential election. Special counsel Jack Smith, who has investigated the 2020 election subversion, indicted Trump and interviewed some fake electors, but hasn’t charged any of them.

Wisconsin’s delegation of sham electors was led by Andrew Hitt, the state GOP chair at the time, and included Robert Spindell, now a member of the Wisconsin Election Commission. They both were part of Wednesday’s settlement.

The civil case is unrelated to any potential state criminal inquiry into the electors plot.

Two liberal-leaning groups filed the case: Wisconsin-based Law Forward and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, at Georgetown University. The groups said the deal penalized people who “ignore our nation’s democratic ideals” and “helps ensure that a similar effort to subvert our democracy will never happen again.”


Well, I say put them all in prison too.




Mango Admits He Will Be A Dictator

10:17 Dec 06 2023
Times Read: 278

Donald Trump mocked questions about authoritarianism on Tuesday, saying he would be a dictator only on "day one," and then he's going to close the border and get to drilling.

"After that, I'm not a dictator, OK?" the Republican presidential frontrunner told Fox News host Sean Hannity before a very friendly crowd in Davenport, Iowa.

Trump declined to discuss his pledges of "retribution" against political opponents, including threats to investigate President Joe Biden and others who have criticized him.

Biden and other opponents, including some Republicans, describe Trump as a grave threat to democracy, and this will likely be a huge issue in the 2024 election.

“Donald Trump has been telling us exactly what he will do if he’s reelected and tonight he said he will be a dictator on day one," said a statement from Julie Chavez Rodriguez, the Biden-Harris campaign manager. "Americans should believe him.”

The former president and frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2024 has described some of his opponents as "vermin," a term used by 20th century dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

"If Trump wasn't running, I'm not sure I'd be running,” Biden told supporters during a fundraiser Tuesday, adding that he and his supporters “cannot let him win.”

Mark Esper, a former defense secretary during the Trump administration, told MSNBC that a re-elected Trump will be able to "enact his policy of revenge that he’s been talking about, and retribution. And look, it’s quite a dangerous time for our democracy if that were to happen."

Former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who is in the midst of a book tour told CBS News that the nation is "sleepwalking into dictatorship" in the United States.

During the Fox News appearance, Trump attacked Biden and claimed that his supporters are behind the four criminal trials that are pending against him.

Trump also mocked Biden's age and said the president might not be the Democratic nominee. "I personally don't think he makes it," he said.

Fox News billed the event as a "town hall," but no one from the Trump-friendly audience got to ask a question.

The former president has been indicted in two cases involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The other two trials deal with improper hush money payments and the mishandling of classified documents.

Trump traveled to Iowa for the Fox News appearance a day before Republican rivals gathered in Tuscaloosa, Ala., for their fourth debate.

Citing his big lead in polls, Trump has skipped all the GOP debates.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump: I'll be a 'dictator' only on 'day one'


ok.... and if any of you believe he would not be a dictator in the days following Day 1 you are living in an alternate reality. Not to mention a President of the United States SHOULD NEVER utter those words. But everything is ok ,right? What could possibly gp wrong... How about this... Mango had said during his first term that his time in office should be extended (by what authority??) because he was unfairly investigated... so he decides there will not be a presidential election in 2028 because he thinks his time in office should be extended. Consider how many GOPQ/MAGA trash States are in the control of his minions and they go along that. What happens then???? This guy SHOULD NEVER enter the White House again!!!!




Mango Intends To Gut The Constitution

16:48 Dec 04 2023
Times Read: 295

Donald Trump is underscoring the profound choice that voters could face next year with expansive claims of unchecked presidential power alongside increasingly unapologetic anti-democratic rhetoric.

A weekend claim by the ex-president –- who refused to accept the result of the last election –- that Joe Biden is the one destroying democracy earned a rebuke from the current commander-in-chief’s campaign Monday. The exchange showed how Trump’s political career is built on an edifice of a spectacular falsehood that is nevertheless effective in motivating his voters. It’s also revealing of how Trump, who has pledged to use a new term to go after his opponents, sees no limits on his power if he wins next year.

The Republican front-runner is for instance arguing in multiple courts that by virtue of his role as a former president, he is immune from the laws and precedents under which other Americans are judged. This has huge consequences not simply for the courtroom accounting that is yet to take place over his first turbulent term. Given that he has a good chance of winning the presidency again – he’s narrowly leading President Joe Biden in some swing-state polling – it also raises grave constitutional questions over the limits on presidential power.

This is why the 2024 election will represent such a momentous episode in American history. The entire constitutional premise of US governance could be on the line.

Trump’s concept of the untamable presidency sheds light on how he would behave in a second term given his apparent belief that any action a president might take is, by definition, legal. He has already promised he’d use four more years in the White House to enact personal “retribution” against his political foes. If the twice-impeached former president wins the Republican nomination and the presidency, it is already clear that a second term would risk destroying the principle that presidents do not hold monarchial power.

The courts may end up being the only institution standing in the way of the ex-president, who faces four criminal trials – two of them over alleged election interference related to his false claims of fraud in the 2020 contest that he lost. He’s pleaded not guilty in all of the cases against him and maintains no wrongdoing.

In a blow to Trump’s strategy, his power grab was rejected last week in a landmark opinion by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will preside over his federal election subversion case that is due to start in March. But consistent with his attempt to delay his criminal trials until after November’s election, Trump is likely to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which would face one of its most significant rulings on the scope of presidential power in decades if it decided to take up the case.

Chutkan rejected several strands of Trump’s argument in her sweeping opinion and got to the core of the ex-president’s vision of power when she wrote that his “four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”

The idea that presidents are subject to the same legal curbs as any other citizen and that every American is equal under the law is a foundation of the US legal and political system. But it is one Trump consistently seeks to overturn.

The ex-president’s assault on the fabric of American democracy is also evident in how he tries to paint efforts to hold him to account for his attempts to destroy the integrity of the 2020 election as a bid by the Biden administration to cheat in the 2024 election.

Trump, for instance, this weekend took aim at arguments by Biden and other critics that his behavior represents a threat to the survival of American democracy if he wins the general election next year.

“Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy,” Trump said during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Saturday. “Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy and … it’s him and his people. They’re the wreckers of the American dream. The American dream is dead with them in office, it’s sad.”

The idea that Trump is a defender of democracy is absurd, given that he tried to interrupt the long tradition of peaceful transfers of power after the 2020 election, the result of which was confirmed by every recount and court that ruled on his false claims of voter fraud. But it is characteristic of Trump to accuse an adversary of the transgressions of which he is himself guilty. And the effectiveness of his unique ability to manufacture false realities – and to use them as tools of power – can be seen in the attitudes of millions of Trump supporters who now believe the 2020 election was stolen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa warned in a statement that “Donald Trump’s America in 2025 is one where the government is his personal weapon to lock up his political enemies. You don’t have to take our word for it - Trump has admitted it himself.” Moussa added: “After spending a week defending his plan to rip health care away from millions of Americans, this is his latest desperate attempt at distraction - the American people see right through it and it won’t work.” Trump recently pledged to try again to kill the Affordable Care Act if he wins next year, then spent several days backtracking on an issue many other Republicans regard as a political loser.

Fresh indications of the former and possibly future president’s autocratic leanings are emerging six weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses, the first Republican nominating contest. Trump’s GOP opponents – who still trail him by considerable margins – have barely raised his anti-democratic rhetoric or his attempt to defy the will of the voters in 2020, which could scare away moderate voters in swing states during the general election. The former president’s rivals seem to want to avoid alienating GOP voters who sympathize with Trump’s claims – consistent with the party’s longtime failure to constrain or punish his repeated attacks on democracy.

In an extraordinary moment in Iowa on Sunday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis exemplified the way that candidates are scared to bring up Trump’s anti-democratic behavior. Amazingly, the governor implied that the ex-president’s transgression was not in trying to steal an election that he lost but in failing to do so successfully.

“Am I going to let them take an election for me?” DeSantis said. “Of course I’m not going to do that. I’m going to do everything I can to ensure that the people’s voice is heard. I’m sick of the whining about it, when you don’t do anything about it. Why would you have let them get away with it? I mean, I don’t understand. If you didn’t stop it when you were in office, how are you going to stop it when you’re out of office?”

One Republican who has criticized Trump – and effectively paid for her comments with her political career – is former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, who said in an interview that aired this weekend that new Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson was “absolutely” a collaborator in Trump’s effort to steal the 2020 election and that her party was unfit to have the House majority because of its craven attitude toward Trump.

“I believe very strongly in those principles and ideals that have defined the Republican party, but the Republican Party of today has made a choice and they haven’t chosen the Constitution,” Cheney said on “CBS Sunday Morning.”

“And so I do think it presents a threat if the Republicans are in the majority in January 2025.”

Cheney warned that if Trump was reelected for a second term, he would not be constrained by the political system. She said that people don’t “fully understand the extent to which the Republicans in Congress today have been co-opted. … One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.”

One of Trump’s closest allies in Washington, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday that he believed Cheney was acting out of personal animosity toward Trump.

“I think Liz’s hatred of Trump is real,” Graham said. “I understand why people don’t like what he does and says at times, but in terms of actions and results, he was far better than Biden. … And if we have four more years of this, Liz Cheney, then we won’t recognize America, and the world will be truly on fire.”

Chutkan is not the only judge who is seeking to rein in Trump’s effort to wield his former position as what she called “a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” In another case Friday, an appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled the ex-president could be sued in civil courts over events related to the riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan contradicted one of Trump’s bedrock beliefs that everything a president says or does in office is protected from liability.

The president “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities,” the opinion said. “And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity. … When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen.”

In another case, arising from the indictment of Trump and associates in Fulton County, Georgia, Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the prosecution is an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election. And they are warning that the case may not be tried until 2029, given the possibility that Trump could win the next election and the constitutional principle that federal laws take precedence over state ones. “Under the Supremacy Clause and its duty to the president of the United States, this trial would not take place at all until after he left his term of office,” Trump lawyer Steven Sadow told the judge.

Trump’s arguments about protections offered to him simply because of his former role are not convincing judges – as is evident in Chutkan’s opinion.

“Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” Chutkan wrote in response to claims by Trump’s attorneys that his falsehoods about a fraudulent election represented an attempt to ensure election accountability as part of his official capacity as president and are therefore shielded by presidential immunity.

But Trump has long been more adept at manipulating the political system. And if he succeeds in 2024, his legal arguments will have been a warning of a second term that he envisions with almost no guardrails.


And there you go. I have said it for a number of years now. It is now more in the mainstream. I suggest you wake the fuck up.. Your country and freedom will vanish under Mango Mussolini and his minions.




Gay Panic As a Defense to a Charge of Murder

22:34 Dec 03 2023
Times Read: 307

If you’re charged with murdering someone who is queer or trans in Kentucky, you may have a powerful legal defense on your side. Kentucky is among the states that allow for you to excuse that murder on the basis that your violence was a justified reaction to the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

That might sound outrageous, because it is. It's also true.

It's called the LGBTQ+ “panic” defense, and it is nothing new in America’s legal system. Thankfully, it is on a rapid decline.

In the past decade, 17 states and Washington, D.C., have expressly banned the use of the gay/trans panic defense. This year alone, both New Hampshire and Delaware joined in outlawing the defense.

The LGBTQ+ panic defense relies on the assumption that it is reasonable for a perpetrator to react violently to discovering a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or in responding to a romantic advance by a queer or trans person.

The defense has allowed for individuals accused of murder to have their charges and sentences reduced because of their “justification” for responding violently to the knowledge that an individual identifies as LGBTQ+.

The gay/trans panic defense is not a passive and never-before-used legal tactic. Since the 1960s, it has been frequently used in court opinions in roughly half of the states.

The panic defense has been used in Kentucky to excuse the murders of queer people. Twenty years ago, Joshua Cottrell lured Guin “Richie” Phillips, a 36-year-old gay man, into an Elizabethtown hotel room and killed him. Phillips' body was found days later in a suitcase dumped into Rough River Lake.

After Cottrell’s lawyers invoked the gay panic defense at trial, arguing that he was justified in responding violently to Phillips’ alleged romantic advance at the hotel, the jury rejected the murder charge and instead found Cottrell guilty of a lesser charge: second-degree manslaughter.

Cottrell was sentenced to 20 years for his killing of Phillips, but was eligible for parole merely 2 1/2 years after his conviction.

Beyond the devastating influence of the gay panic defense in excusing the murders of queer and trans civilians, the defense sends a clear message that an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity is a valid basis to justify violence.

We misremember marriage equality fight. It wasn't 'easy,' but it paved the way for trans rights.

By continuing to allow for the gay/trans panic defense to be a valid legal excuse under Kentucky law, the legislature sends a message to our LGBTQ+ community that our identities are worthy of rejection, cruelty and violence.

But for those witnessing the ever-expanding anti-LGBTQ+ agenda of Kentucky’s conservative lawmakers, it is no surprise that nothing has been done to address the panic defense.

Kentucky’s lawmakers proudly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of Senate Bill 150 and allowed the bill to become law. It bans all gender-affirming medical care for trans youth and permits teachers to openly misgender and discriminate against students.

Starbucks gave trans employees lifeline. Then they put our health care at risk.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that so many within Kentucky’s LGBTQ+ community remain pessimistic about the prospect of prohibiting the use of this panic defense.

It is nonetheless crucial that we continue to call out Kentucky's lawmakers for their inaction on banning a malicious legal tactic that excuses violence against queer and trans people in the state.

And hope could be found in the reelection of Gov. Beshear, who has been a noteworthy champion for LGBTQ+ Kentuckians in his advocacy to ban conversion therapy and vetoing legislation that attacks members of our community.

With his final term approaching, Beshear has the unique opportunity to build on his pro-equality legacy and call on Kentucky’s legislature to join the growing number of states in rejecting the LGBTQ+ panic defense, an issue that has avoided the political spotlight.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

Although the prospects of banning the defense with a conservative supermajority in Kentucky’s legislature remains disturbingly slim, we owe it to past, present and future victims of sexuality- and gender-motivated crimes to call for an end to a defense that skirts justice where it is needed most.

Until then, as more and more states rid themselves of the gay/trans panic defense, Kentucky will unfortunately remain at the tail end of progress for LGBTQ+ equality.





Liz Cheney-"America Sleepwalking Into A Dictatorship"

02:24 Dec 02 2023
Times Read: 321

Liz Cheney, the former Republican representative from Wyoming, expressed deep concern in an interview about American democracy’s ability to survive another four-year presidential term for Donald Trump.

In clips shared Friday from the interview that will air on “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Cheney told host Josh Dickerson that Americans can’t entirely rely on Congress and the judicial system to rein in Trump ― the clear front-runner at this point for the GOP presidential nomination despite facing 91 felony charges linked to his 2016 campaign, his 2020 reelection loss and his mishandling of classified documents.

“He’s told us what he will do. It’s very easy to see the steps that he will take,” Cheney said.

“People who say ‘Well, if he’s elected, it’s not that dangerous because we have all of these checks and balances’ don’t fully understand the extent to which the Republicans in Congress today have been co-opted. … One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.”


You Better Wake The fuck up and start talking to everyone you have ever known about voting DEM. Even if Biden is old, and he is, he is far better than a Mango Dictatorship. Believe me when I twell you Mango will send the military into cities and then the countryside... You can kiss all elections goodbye




GOPQ Family Values

01:54 Dec 02 2023
Times Read: 323

Christian Ziegler, the Florida GOP chairman and husband of Bridget Ziegler, co-founder of the conservative anti-LGBTQ+ Moms for Liberty group, is under criminal investigation after a sexual battery complaint was filed against him.

This news, reported by the Florida Center for Government Accountability, adds a layer of controversy to the Zieglers, who are prominent in GOP politics.

The group obtained a police report that outlines that the alleged incident occurred on October 2 at the complainant’s home in Sarasota. The report was filed on October 4 with the Sarasota Police Department.

The case is complicated by reports of a previously consensual three-way relationship between the woman and both Zieglers, although the specific incident in question allegedly happened in Bridget Ziegler’s absence. Investigators have executed a search warrant on Christian Ziegler’s phone and are conducting a forensic analysis. There are also allegations of him secretly recording sexual encounters with the complainant.

No charges have been filed in the case, and attempts to contact the Zieglers for comments have been unreturned.

The Zieglers are prominent figures in Florida’s Republican Party, with Christian Ziegler known for his family values platform and Bridget Ziegler gaining recognition for her involvement in the conservative education agenda, including the “don’t say gay” law and her stance against critical race theory in schools.

Alejandra Caraballo, an instructor at Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic, commented about the gobsmacking hypocrisy on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“Bridget Ziegler, a Moms for Liberty co-founder and major proponent of ‘Don’t Say Gay’, is a closeted bisexual who has threesomes with her husband. The level of hypocrisy here is stunning.”

Bridget Ziegler, a Moms for Liberty co-founder and major proponent of "Don't Say Gay", is a closeted bisexual who has threesomes with her husband.\n\nThe level of hypocrisy here is stunning.

— (@)

Further complicating the public image of Moms for Liberty, The Advocate reported earlier in November that the group is facing challenges due to its members’ affiliations with the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist militant group. Following the revelation of these ties, Moms for Liberty removed two of its chapter chairs. These actions reflect the organization’s struggle to maintain its public reputation amidst allegations of extremism and its association with far-right groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Moms for Liberty as an anti-government hate group.

Moms for Liberty, known for its advocacy in local school board elections and support for book bans, has recently faced significant electoral setbacks across the United States. This rebuke suggests a growing public resistance to the group’s controversial stances and affiliations.

Pictured above: Christian Ziegler (L) and Bridget Ziegler





Mango Threatens MSNBC

02:15 Dec 01 2023
Times Read: 213

By Conover Kennard — November 30, 2023
Donald Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, which he launched to allow him to rage against his successor and perceived enemies daily, to lash out at MSNBC for daring to be critical of the former President. You can't make this stuff up. On top of that, Trump falsely claimed that MSNBC "uses FREE government approved airwaves."

"MSNBC (MSDNC) uses FREE government approved airwaves, and yet it is nothing but a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for purposes of ELECTION INTERFERENCE," he wrote. "Brian Roberts, its Chairman and CEO, is a slimeball who has been able to get away with these constant attacks for years."

It is the world's biggest political contribution to the Radical Left Democrats who, by the way, are destroying our Country," he added. "Our so-called "government" should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch!"

The guy who wants back in the White House wants the government to come down on a network "hard" because they hurt his tender feelings.

MSNBC's Chris Hayes said he doesn't know what "triggered" Trump's post and noted that Trump doesn't understand the difference between broadcast and cable. Hayes warned viewers that Trump is speaking of his intent and that he should be taken seriously because Trump's "whining" could turn "into real punitive action."

Brian Stelter, who has been the brunt of attacks from Trump supporters during his time with CNN, weighed in.

"I worked at CNN at the time. Before the election in 2016, Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would try to stop the deal from happening, stop A&T from buying Time Warner," he said. "Then, once he was elected and the deal progressed through the government regulatory system, the Trump DOJ tried to block it. Went to federal court. Delayed by more than a year. AT&T stood up to the DOJ, was actually willing to fight."

"They were able to win in court, and the merger happened. But at great cost," he continued. "It delayed the indie battle against Netflix in the streaming wars.

There's a significant amount of evidence that, behind the scenes, Donald Trump was trying to punish AT&T for owning CNN."

"Basically, for whatever reason, they stood up to Trump," Hayes said. "They stood up to whether it was their principles, the dollars that play, whatever business, they said no."

I know the executives at Comcast in Philly; they don't get rattled by a Truth Social post," Stelter said. "We are seeing this with other media companies. As you said, CNN -- Hungary, Turkey, when the state comes in and takes regulatory action, takes legal action, uses an IRS, a branch of the government to punish a media company, and sometimes you take that media company off the playing field. It is a very real thing."

"That squeeze, to be clear, yes, the First Amendment is here. The way the squeezes worked in places like -- I don't think there are robust democracies as America, but when they started, the IRS now has opened a case on your back taxes, or new legislation that regulates and duties that deliver an item to more than 10 million households every day," Hayes said. "Those are the newspapers. Lo and behold, you are paying fines and fees, and someone comes along and says, why don't I buy that from? You, Rupert Murdoch, why don't I take it off your hands? That person is a buddy of the President."

Trump turning the screws.

"Comcast is an infrastructure company, broadband, tens and millions of others," Stelter said. "You could imagine the way Trump could try to turn the screws. It's not just Comcast. It is any large -- still CNN, all these players. On one level, Trump's post is just the weather. Stormy today, sunny tomorrow."

You will write about someone else tomorrow. On another level, a severe thunderstorm warning. It is a warning about what he will do if he regains power,' he added. "That's why I think it is more notable than when he was in power and tried to punish AT&T, or in power and tried to punish the Washington Post or Jeff Bezos. Back then, he would tweet and go after AT&T, and no one would care. The stock would go up that day. It was meaningless. This time, as a campaign promise he's making to his voters."

Yup, now he's making it a campaign promise. The problem is that his supporters don't care. They care about democracy as much as they did on Jan. 6.


He is telling you what he intends to do.



© 2004 - 2024 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.1698 seconds.

I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.